THE LORD'S SUPPER
THE LORD’S SUPPER
JT What is in mind is that the Lord’s supper is the outcome of the passover. In the Lord’s supper the Lord is seen as the house-father; that is to say, the disciples are regarded as auxiliary in some respects; that is, as children in His household, not in the sense in which the children of God are spoken of, but rather that the Lord has this place in the economy, according to the prophet Isaiah, “I and the children that Jehovah hath given me” (Isaiah 8: 18), alluding to Christ as the Messiah. The thought has come down to us, and the Lord, I believe, carried it through to His supper. It would allude to passages in the gospels in which the disciples are viewed as children of Christ, especially in John’s gospel. Peter says, “I go a fishing”, and they all say the same thing, that they will go with him. There were seven of them, and the Lord says, “Children, have ye any meat?”. He regards them as His children, according to what is said again by the prophet, that He is “Father of Eternity” (Isaiah 9: 6), or Father of the age. It is a great thought attributed to Christ, and it should have an appealing effect on the young people especially that the Lord so familiarly takes the place of father to us here. The apostles had recourse to the same thought, especially John and Paul. Paul addresses the Corinthians as his children. John several times addresses those to whom he writes as children. And so the Lord condescends to bring us into this place, the place of children; not in the sense in which God takes the place of Father, but in the sense in which the Messiah had that place, and the Lord takes it up in the gospels. I thought all this should be mentioned at the beginning, because the subject begins on the day of unleavened bread, in which the passover was to be killed. “And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare the passover for us, that we may eat it. But they said to him, Where wilt thou that we prepare it?” (verses 8, 9). “And when the hour was come, he placed himself at table, and the twelve apostles with him. And he said to them, With desire I have desired [p. 324] to eat this passover with you before I suffer” (verses 14, 15). That is to say, He is still on Jewish ground in a paternal sense. It is passed on to us; the Lord’s supper is opened up to us, and the Lord is pleased to apply it to us as children, placing us on very free terms with Him and with each other. It will become clear to us as we look into it, I am sure.
JP-sn Have you in mind that we are bound together in that way on family lines, so that love should be set free to be found in expression?
JT Yes, and the Lord has liberty to take an official place as having priests of His own, because we are said to be priests of the Christ. That enables us to confine the Supper to the Lord. It is the Lord’s supper. He has all that is necessary in the sense of official service. He has all that is necessary to carry it through, and He regards it as His own supper. It is not the Father’s supper, nor the Spirit’s supper, it is the Lord’s own supper.
HW Do you think the maintaining of the thought that the Lord’s supper is connected with our coming together in our local setting, would help to emphasise the thought of the Lord taking the fatherly place on such an occasion?
JT He should have a certain place with us in our houses, although each man is head of his house, and the sister should be subject to her husband, and so on, yet according to what we read of at Emmaus, He took the house-father’s place, and gave thanks for the bread. There was no cup mentioned, but at the same time it has a suggestion of the Supper.
[p. 315] He took the place of the house-father, and whilst it was not exactly the Lord’s supper in the true sense, yet it was liberating for them all.
HW The appreciation of the Lord in that way would help to liberate this feature amongst the saints as being priests of the Christ?
JT Yes; I think it amplifies and enlarges His place. He has a system of His own in that sense, and there is liberty in it, and we are to accustom ourselves to that. It is all to be handed over to the Father in due course. “I and the Father are one” (John 10: 30), but at the same time He has His own system where He is entitled to have liberty.
AM Would it be right to say that the Lord has His own house, from that point of view?
JT That is right. He has a house. I might have mentioned that at first, because it enters into what is in one’s mind, that the Lord’s supper involves His house, what any man might have, but it links it up with the brethren of Christ, leading to eternal things, especially for young people. They are at liberty to have a part, whereas they might not have liberty if it were on other lines. He has priests of His own, and He has a system of His own which proceeds to a point, and then widens out to the full thought of God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The place Christ has in the economy is distinct.
HW It would greatly help all our young people to have some sense of the magnitude of the occasion in their souls as we sit down together to partake of the Supper.
JT Room should be made for the very youngest who is at liberty to partake of the Lord’s supper.
WSS The household idea would greatly help in this connection. We see it developing in normal conditions in the christian household, children coming into their place, and the same thought would carry over to what you are suggesting to us [p. 316] now?
JT I think it does. It gives them liberty. They are not viewed as children in the sense of little children, but children as John speaks of them. He addresses the saints as his children. It shows how the matter becomes familiar, and what a system we are brought into, and what consideration there is for the young ones. Things are not at a distance from them, but they have part in things. The same idea was carried out in the Old Testament. Anyone who reads the Old Testament would see that the children were taken care of; and in the old economy they were viewed as children until the time of faith came when they graduated into full growth. That works out in Galatians; we are no longer children.
HV The disciples took the place of children because they looked up to the Lord as the only one who was able to teach them.
JT Yes, and the Lord loved to take that place with them. “Children, have ye any meat?”, John 21: 5.
WH Does it suggest that the children are loved, and that they know it? There is affection behind that term?
JT Yes, and we all know it. The parents of our children are free to address children who are not actually theirs, but in terms of affection. There ought to be full liberty for parents to address other children in terms of affection, and it all promotes mutuality. 2 Corinthians 6 leads up to a very important truth that young people should have before them: “Our mouth is opened to you, Corinthians, our heart is expanded. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your affections; but for an answering recompense, (I speak as to children,) let your heart also expand itself. Be not diversely yoked with unbelievers; for what participation is there between righteousness and lawlessness? or what fellowship of light with darkness? and what consent of [p. 317] Christ with Beliar, or what part for a believer along with an unbeliever? and what agreement of God’s temple with idols? for ye are the living God’s temple; according as God has said, I will dwell among them, and walk among them; and I will be their God, and they shall be to me a people. Wherefore come out from the midst of them, and be separated, saith the Lord, and touch not what is unclean, and I will receive you; and I will be to you for a Father, and ye shall be to me for sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. Having therefore these promises, beloved, let us purify ourselves from every pollution of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in God’s fear”, 2 Corinthians 6: 11, to 2 Corinthians 7: 1. This was one of the passages in my mind, the way the apostle speaks of the saints there.
WSS You made a reference to the Teacher, “The Teacher says to thee”. Would that come into what you have been saying to us?
JT Yes, it runs right through John’s gospel, and the young people ought to be familiarised with it: the Lord teaching in the capacity of a parent, with all the affection that He has behind it. He said, “Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not” (Luke 18: 16); and “Except ye ... become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven”, Matthew 18: 3.
JP-sn Has this in view the expansion of our minds, and the affections being set free so that there might be something in the way of response to Christ?
JT Yes. If the brethren are free about this paternal thought as attaching to the Lord it will greatly help the young, I am sure, because the Lord has His own way in becoming Man. The Father has not become man, the Spirit has not become man, but the Son has. The Lord Jesus has become Man, and He has all the feelings of a man. He is seen in Luke as an infant, and in Matthew as a little child;
[p. 318] so that He came through all these stages; not that He could not enter into these feelings as in the Deity, but we have them presented in Man. This does not apply to the Father or to the Spirit.
EB So that it is an important place the Lord has as a house-father, in view of the Supper. He is quite free, and He would set us free.
JT Quite so. It should attract the young people, because they have a place not only in the parents’ house, but in His house. It is His supper, and His service. It is the Lord’s supper.
HW So would you continue the idea of the guest chamber? It is the Lord’s occasion, and we are guests?
JT I would rather try to connect the thought with the household, because a guest is more distant than the members of the household.
WSS There is something very attractive in what you have been saying, in linking up the homes and the houses with what is before us here. Children are accustomed to the father taking his place at the head of the table, and everything proceeds in an orderly way. I think what you have said in regard to the house-father is beautiful: “When the hour was come, he placed himself at table”. It is a position we come into where we recognise the place of father which He has taken.
JT We can visualise the position. The Lord is the Head, He sat down there as Head; and the twelve are called apostles, meaning that they were there as having authority, and all the authority was under Christ. All the young people were not there yet, but it would widen out and include all the saints. Matthew says, “Drink ye all of it”, which would include all the young ones. The headship of Christ enters into it, and the young ones would participate in the whole matter as having to do with a system of which Christ is Head.
AWLeS [p. 319] Would the mention of the day and the hour suggest that the children are brought up with a christian calendar?
JT Yes. It is a matter which should affect us all. “When the hour was come”. It should prevent lateness in the meetings. It does not follow that the Lord will come in as we might wish, and sit down in assembly if things are not pleasing to Him. It says, “When the hour was come, he placed himself at table”, and ‘placed’ involves that you do not sit down anyhow. Each one should know how to behave herself or himself when they sit down in assembly.
NW The apostle’s word in 1 Corinthians 11: 18 would govern that largely. “When ye come together in assembly”. It would help to provide the dignity.
JT The Corinthians were misbehaving, and the contrast is there. They were worse than children.
Ques Would this matter of Christ as father come into expression at all, or would it simply be held in our minds in order to set us free?
JT It would add to the honour that belongs to Christ, in the sense of authority. The young ones are ready to accord that to Him. The normal use of the term father is seen in 1 Corinthians 8: 6, “To us there is one God, the Father, of whom all things, and we for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ”. That is the ordinary meaning, and it is only a question of the use of the word ‘father’ as we are looking at it now; it is a question of the advantage in it for the young people in the sense of submission to the Lord.
WH The same expression is used in James 1: 17, “the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning”. Is that a suggestion of warmth?
JT It is the Father of lights. The Father is in the house as the sun is in the heavens for light, and heat too, but it is applied to God; it is God who is in mind, not Christ, but God.
AM [p. 320] Would it be right to say the Lord takes charge of the local position, that He takes it on and honours it? We honour Him, but He honours the position. Does not Luke carry forward the idea of the upper room?
JT I think he does. The upper room is to be understood in the presentation of the truth in 1 Corinthians. The book opens with this, “To the assembly of God which is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called saints, with all that in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both theirs and ours”. It is a local position, it is the assembly of God, not universally, but in Corinth; in a certain locality, as it might be here in Adelaide. It is a question of the local position, and the fatherly thought enters into that in the Lord’s supper.
AWW Should the reference to the children, and the place they have in all this, test us in our outlook as to what we should look for in receiving children to the breaking of bread?
JT The children are all in mind in view of breaking bread, even though they be only ten, or even nine years of age. We might say that is too young, and in most cases it would be, but at the same time God can work in a child of that age. Children are capable of taking in the idea of father as applied to Jesus.
AWW We need help in this city as to what we should look for in the children in relation to reception.
JT There is great need, because the schools at the present time are terrible. Things which are brought before the children which they have to learn are terrible, and anything which is an antidote to that, or a corrective of that, should be pursued by the parents.
AHS Can you help us as to what we should look for in the young ones who wish to remember [p. 321] the Lord? We have an exercise in our city at the present time; a number of children, some quite young, wish to break bread, and we feel we need a great deal of help in regard to what we have to look for.
JT We have the same exercise in our meetings in New York. Several of the very young ones are allowed to break bread. All fathers and mothers should take to heart how to help the very young ones. They should be brought up in the truth of christianity as well as in the ordinary matters of education. Their minds are supposed to take something in at five or six years of age; why not apply that principle to christianity?
AHS You mean a great deal devolves upon their parents, and their careful instruction of them?
JT Jehovah had directed Joshua to take up twelve stones and to place them in the land of Canaan. It was not a land in any child’s mind, in the full sense. Canaan was a great thought in the mind of Israel, and in the mind of God. The little children will not understand it, but they will understand the idea of breaking the bread and drinking of the cup with their parents, in remembrance of the Lord Jesus as their Saviour. They will ask their parents what these stones mean. Besides the stones Joshua was directed to take out of the midst of the Jordan, he took stones out of the land and placed them in the bed of the Jordan, and they are there to this day (Joshua 4: 9). What would a child know about that? He would know when he gets to the actual land where the stones are placed, but he would not understand about the stones in the bed of the Jordan, but the two things are placed together.
JP-sn We might gather what impressions they have of the Lord Jesus themselves, and what questions they are asking about any impressions they receive amongst [p. 322] the saints.
JT The parents brought the children to Jesus, and the disciples rebuked them, but the Lord said, “Suffer the little children to come”. These are the things you would expect. The children ought to begin young, and if they can learn ordinary things from a youthful book, why not learn the things of God in that way? Why not learn the truth of the Lord’s supper in that way? It is something they can take in, that the Lord has made a request that they should do this for the calling of Him to mind. They will never forget that phrase, and the Holy Spirit carries the thought on to the spiritual level, and they will soon get on to that, and enter into the spirit of it in the ordinary sense.
AHS Would you look for a sense of responsibility in young children?
JT I certainly should. At the large meeting held in Glasgow recently a question as to the young people was raised by a brother who has a great deal to do with the young, and God blesses him. I suggested that the Lord was twelve years of age when He was found in the temple and said, “Wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?”, Luke 2: 49. Why not give some importance to that as regards the children generally?
AHS Would the twelve years of age be literal?
JT I think so; otherwise why is it stated there? He eliminates Joseph and Mary and says, “Wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?”
AWLeS The children would be affected as coming from a house in which there is already a house-father?
JT Yes.
JP-sn Do you think there is a responsibility on us to teach them as to the responsibility of the fellowship, so that they are brought to see the distinctive place the Lord has as house-father?
JT [p. 323] Yes, that helps; and it augments the father’s love and the mother’s love in the minds of the children. The parents become more an object of affection and respect to the children. The more we can promote that the better.
HH-n Should we not look for obedience in the children?
JT Why should that be recorded that He went down with His parents to Nazareth, and was subject to them?
HH-n And the saints should be the same?
JT That is the idea. He is a model for them.
WSS Sometimes there is the thought in our minds that the children need to learn something of the hardness of the world before they come into fellowship. Our outlook in these matters needs correcting if we have thoughts of this kind?
JT The less they see of the world the better.
WSS The earlier they take their place, the better for them, and it is a place of salvation?
JT Quite so.
WHR The story of Hannah in the temple should characterise our thoughts in connection with the temple?
JT That is an excellent example. She took a little coat every year. How that would enlarge the thought of his mother, in Samuel’s mind. Each year the coat would be a larger size, and he would take notice of that.
JP-sn Does this not all come into the matter of the Lord’s supper as applying it to ourselves? There is teaching in regard to it which the Lord takes in hand, and we are to give Him His place, and see that the Supper all centres in Himself?
JT This all arises from the word hour, and the Lord placing himself at the table, the authority of the twelve apostles also coming into this passage. In verse 15 He says, “With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer”. This is not the Lord’s supper, it is the passover. It is an idea carried forward from the Old Testament. “For I say unto you, that I will not eat any more at all of it until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God”. They had to learn that they were at school. It is a question of the very early truth which enters into the Lord’s supper; it is the very beginning of everything in the way of the service of God. So that “having received a cup, when he had given thanks he said, Take this and divide it among yourselves. For I say unto you, that I will not drink at all of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God come”. He is not saying anything about the Lord’s supper yet. This cup He has handed to them is not the Lord’s supper, it is the passover supper. But He says, “I will not drink at all”. He is giving up something negative, and He is going to introduce something new, something positive.
Then we get the Lord’s supper. “Having taken a loaf, when he had given thanks, he broke it, and gave it to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you, this do in remembrance of me”. “This do in remembrance of me”. This is the Lord’s supper. “In like manner also the cup, after having supped”. This is not the cup of verse 17, it is the cup of the Lord’s supper. The Lord is leading out from the passover and from the Old Testament economy into the new, so how much there is for the young to learn, and to learn at the very beginning of christianity.
HW Why is the word ‘given’ left out in Corinthians? “My body which is given”. What would be in the Lord’s mind in giving it to the apostle Paul in that way?
JT He left the whole matter of the Lord’s supper so that it should be in Paul’s hands, because Paul is the Lord’s special man. Everything is placed [p. 325] in his hands in that sense, and we have to learn the full thought of the Lord’s supper and of the assembly from Paul.
HW Would Luke’s presentation help us to move intelligently into Paul’s line?
JT He follows Luke in his writings. We have Luke and the Acts, and Paul follows Luke in all his writings. You can understand how the apostle Paul would regard Luke. He called Luke the “beloved physician”.
HW At the end he says “Only Luke is with me”. In that way Luke would help us to an appreciation of Paul’s ministry, and vice versa.
JT Some of us were speaking of what Paul endured, the things that he suffered as presented in 2 Corinthians, but especially shipwreck, and how Luke is able to use the right language; he knew what he was saying even from a nautical point of view; and Paul says, “Only Luke is with me”, but he was with him all through that experience.
HW Is any further thought in your mind before we close?
JT I thought especially of the change-over from the cup of the passover in verse 17 to verse 19, which reads: “Having taken a loaf, when he had given thanks, he broke it, and gave it to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. In like manner also the cup, after having supped, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you”, and so on. The Lord changed over, and replaced the old system by the new. We all come into the truth of christianity by seeing that the old system is displaced by christianity and by Paul’s ministry.
WH In Mark it says, “As they were eating, Jesus, having taken bread”.
JT And in Matthew also. It would mean that the Old Testament furnished the Lord with the [p. 326] means of teaching His disciples. That is, they were already eating. The people of God could not live at all unless they had something to eat, but the old was displaced gradually by the new, and the new is the Lord’s supper.
JP-sn Do we need a little help to see that the Supper — the loaf and the cup — stands in relation to Himself?
JT The apostles are the source we look to to learn christianity. Acts 2: 42 speaks of the apostles’ doctrine. It was the twelve from whom these newly converted people were to learn the apostles’ doctrine. We must go by the New Testament, and not by the Old, if it is a question of discipline or doctrine. The New Testament comes first. They persevered in the apostles’ teaching, not in the teaching of Moses, or David, or the Psalms, but in the apostles’ teaching.
WSS What is the bearing of the words “for you” in connection with the bread and the cup? Does it indicate the bearing of the Supper as being for the saints?
JT It is not for the Jewish remnant. Some say that it is, that the Lord’s supper will be continued by the Jewish remnant. It is “for you”. It is for the assembly only.
WSS I was thinking of the words, “A body hast thou prepared me”, Hebrews 10: 5. The Lord’s body there would suggest His coming to accomplish the will of God, but here the emphasis is on the bearing towards the saints: “for you”. How far do we have before us the thought of the Lord accomplishing the will of God in the Supper? Would a brother who serves the saints in breaking the bread give place in his thanksgiving for the Lord’s accomplishing the will of God?
JT I should think so. I think we ought to have before us the thought that He accomplished the will of God in it. “Lo, I come to do thy will, O God.
[p. 327] He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second”, Hebrews 10: 9.
WSS I am thankful for what you say, because there is sometimes a tendency with us to exclude certain things, and to go beyond just what the Supper is from our point of view.
JT I would not like to exclude the will of God; that is all I can say. I would not like to minimise the fact that the Lord’s supper is the Lord’s.
JP-sn Would you help us in regard to the cup, as to whether it is an expression of the Lord’s own love, rather than the love of God?
JT I think we have to keep to that in connection with the cup. The love of God comes in, but for myself I would not like to bring in anyone but the Lord Himself when it is the cup. “In like manner also the cup”, and then He adds, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you”. I feel it is necessary to avoid bringing God in, because it is the Lord’s supper. We can reserve all that refers to God for a later part of the meeting. It is a question of “from glory to glory”; how much there is in it for all the divine Persons, but the glory of the Lord’s supper is the Lord’s.
WM “Not discerning the Lord’s body”, does that emphasise what you are saying as to its being the Lord’s supper?
JT That is just the point. They were not discerning the Lord’s body. It is the Lord’s body, which shows how careful we should be to have the Lord in mind in everything regarding His supper, so that we do not belittle Him in any sense. “For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep”, 1 Corinthians 11: 30. For that very cause. There is an actual penalty attached to the disregard of the Lord in His supper, not discerning what refers to Him there.
JM [p. 328] Would you exclude the thought of the love of God from the cup?
JT I do. I think we could easily lay things aside, and reserve them for other features of this great occasion in the service of God, but there is the service rendered to Christ too, in connection with His supper.
JM “This cup is the new covenant in my blood”. Does not that touch the love of God?
JT It is the new covenant in my blood; that is Christ’s blood.
JP-sn It is for His praise. It is the Lord personally who is before us.
JM Those words suggest to you then that the cup is the new covenant in Christ’s blood?
JT That is what I am saying; the Lord says, “my blood”. I do not believe we fully take in what the Lord’s words mean, in what He said to Paul as to His supper. These are the words we have to consider in 1 Corinthians 11; they are Paul’s words of what he received from the Lord Jesus. “For I received from the Lord, that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus, in the night in which he was delivered up, took bread, and having given thanks broke it, and said, This is my body, which is for you, this do in remembrance of me. In like manner also the cup, after having supped, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, this do, as often as ye shall drink it, in remembrance of me”. That is the great point in it. I would say as to the new covenant, that it was never made with the assembly; it was made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. Paul’s words as to what he received from the Lord are, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; this do ... in remembrance of me”. That is what the Lord’s supper is for. It is not to teach us about the new covenant, but to teach us about [p. 329] the Lord.
MCT Does it help to see we are still occupied with the Lord? We continue after the emblems to be occupied with His glory, until we are led to the Father.
JT Are not the saints right in attaching to Him the full bearing and the full meaning of His own words?
WSS If we have the Lord really occupying our affections and minds, we would be more touched by the words “my blood”, endearing Him to us afresh.
JT That is right.
WSS What you have been saying as to what the Lord is in the Supper is very valuable. All the great thoughts as to God and the Father come with greater fulness and power when they come in their right order.
JT It raises a question as to the place David’s ministry has in christianity. He introduced the idea of a departmental ministry and service. The department of the Lord’s supper is a great matter.
WSS Would you say that unless we take things up in this departmental way we will be confused?
JT We would get confused. David introduced the idea of the departments in 1 Chronicles 23 to the end of that book. It is carried down into the New Testament in the book of Revelation, in the four and twenty elders. The people who know God and know Christ always know what to do. They do the right thing, and say the right thing. They pass things on to the living creatures. When the living creatures do something, the four and twenty elders do more, they bow down and worship.
JP-sn The thought of the Lord as the house-father would bring the young people into things in a systematic way, and would bring them into liberty, and they would fit into things in a departmental [p. 330] sense?
JT Yes; the children are brought up in different grades when they go to school, and that is the way the truth grows.
EB What you have been saying is all in view of retaining the Lord in His own sphere until the completion of the Supper. You do not step out of that department.
JT “With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer”.
HV “I lay down my life ... I have authority to lay it down and I have authority to take it again”, John 10: 17, 18. What was His object in taking it again? Was it to secure a people for Himself and for God?
JT That is a remarkable position. “This commandment have I received of my Father”. It is a commandment from the Father. We are all ready to accord to the Father what is due to Him, and the Lord says, “This commandment have I received of my Father”; that is, to lay down His life and take it again. He had a commandment from the Father to do it.
JM What thoughts come before you as you give thanks for the cup?
JT The Lord Jesus. The thought of remembrance. It is for a calling of Him to mind. It does not say that in Luke.
HW It is not the teaching of the covenant.
JT It is the Lord personally who is in mind in the Lord’s supper.
WM How are we privileged to regard ourselves, as we enter the hall with a view to calling the Lord to mind?
JT I would say to begin with, that we meet one another; that is the beginning. We meet each other, and have each other in mind, so that the Lord can draw near to us, and have pleasure in us, because we love one another. That is the way I [p. 331] would regard it; and that is the way I do regard it, in coming into the hall with the brethren. I often say to myself, ‘Are we all here?’ Mr. Raven is reported to have said that the first thing he did was to have a good look at the saints, and then at the loaf. That was good advice.
WM We do not regard ourselves as sons?
JT It is too soon to bring sonship in. It is a question of what we are in everyday life. We approach chapter 11 of 1 Corinthians by chapter 10; it is a question of what we have been going through during the week, and whether we have kept ourselves right, and whether we are prepared for the Lord’s supper. “Is it not the communion of the blood of the Christ?” 1 Corinthians 10: 16. We begin with that.
WM The Scripture says, “When the disciples came together to break bread”, Acts 20: 7. Should we regard ourselves as disciples?
JT I should say that. Not even as brethren, or as sons, but just as disciples. It was a question of their having light from Him. The word disciple means that they were His disciples. That is what should come before us.
WH When we sit down are we on risen ground?
JT I do not think so. We are just ordinary men and women.
HW In our local setting?
JT Yes. Each one should search his heart every morning before sitting down.